1 of 52

Welcome and thank you for attending today!

We will begin momentarily

Let us know in the chat who you are, what country you are from, and your organization

2 of 52

Resist US-NATO Aggression, Bases, and the Militarization of Europe!

Uphold Peoples' Rights and Liberation!

3 of 52

Resist NATO Points of Unity

We oppose NATO as a US-led military alliance that is a prime actor in imperialist and proxy wars of aggression, military occupation, and environmental destruction, resulting in the deaths and displacement of millions of people.

We oppose US-NATO strategy of expansionism and intensification of militarization across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe and the complicity of governments of European Union member countries in further service of US geopolitical and economic interests in the region.

We oppose US-NATO strategy of security through wars of counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency, mass surveillance, and systematic attacks on peoples’ rights and freedoms, as well as their direct responsibility for intensifying interimperialist rivalry.

We oppose NATO’s role in enabling the rise of far-right and authoritarian governments in Europe, which use militarization and fear-driven narratives to erode civil liberties, suppress dissent, and undermine democratic rights.

We oppose NATO's collaboration with non-member states through partnership programs such as the Mediterranean Dialogue, Partnership for Peace, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and other frameworks that include governments such as the Zionist government of Israel, with records of systemic violence, human rights abuses, and genocide.

4 of 52

Resist NATO Points of Unity

We oppose NATO's push for ever-increasing military spending, which prioritizes the war economy over social services and compels European governments to deepen austerity measures, undermining public healthcare, education, housing, pension, and the welfare of the working class across the region.

We support the right of peoples and nations to self-determination and sovereignty, the exercise of their fundamental rights and freedoms, and their right to resistance against imperialist aggression.

We support a just peace through resolving the root causes of armed conflicts, allocating resources not to the war industry but to serve and provide for people's needs.

We support peoples’ struggles to assert their democratic rights in the face of increasing attacks on freedom, political rights, and social justice imposed by militarized and authoritarian policies.

5 of 52

Get involved today! Attend the open campaign meeting!

Monday, March 10th 7:30pm Central Europe Time

Register: tinyurl.com/RN-0310

6 of 52

Agenda

NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union
NATO and US war provocations, heightening of tensions
The urgent need for peace after 3 years of the brutal destruction of Ukraine

Welcome to our webinar titled “NATO Expansion and the Russia-Ukraine War.” Today we will be highlighting NATOs role as a destabilizing force against the Soviet Union, as well as Russia, from its inception in 1949 until today, focusing on the ongoing War between Russia and Ukraine.

NATO was established in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II, with 12 founding members including the United States, United Kingdom, and several Western European nations. The alliance's initial purpose was succinctly summarized by its first Secretary General, who stated that NATO's mission was to "Keep America in, Russia out and Germany down".

During the Cold War, NATO played a significant role in the ideological and military confrontation between the US-led Western bloc and the Soviet Union. While direct conflict between NATO and Soviet forces was avoided, the US engaged in numerous interventions across the global south, often using NATO as a means to undermine national liberation movements in the region, in order to uphold its neocolonial control.

In 1955, The Soviet Union offered to join NATO as a means to preserve peace in Europe but was rejected by the alliance, as this would be against its existential purpose of protecting US-led military strategy. It was this act that prompted the formation of the Warsaw Pact, a similar alliance to NATO but of the East European socialist countries led by the Soviet Union.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the warsaw pact, which essentially made NATO redundant, NATO did not cease to exist, showing its true colours as a weapon to further US imperialist interests.

This brings us to the start of the main points of the webinar

We will break down the webinar into 3 main parts which can be broken down into 3 different timelines. 1990-2014, 2014-2022 and 2022 until now.

7 of 52

1990-2014

NATO Expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union
Orange Revolution
Resistance to NATO in Ukraine
Maidan Revolution

8 of 52

NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union

9 of 52

NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union

"We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Vice Chancellor of Germany, January 31, 1990

“There will be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," James Baker, US Secretary of State, February 9, 1990

“We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” Helmut Kohl, chancellor of Germany, February 10, 1990

“We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” John Major, Prime Minister of Britain, March 1991

One of the reasons the Russian government gives for the military invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are the broken promises by the West: US-led NATO not upholding its promises to not expand closer to Russian borders. This is also one of the most controversial and disputed, leading to disagreements and a lot of mental gymnastics among scholars, politicians, as well as the people. Some claim that although there were certain promises made by high ranking politicians, most notably by Genscher, former Vice Chancellor of Germany, James Baker, former US Secretary of State, among others, these were not in writing and therefore inadmissible. Others claim that certain leading officials misunderstood certain statements, like Yeltsin, during his meeting with former US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, due to his intoxication. Others, even western media, like der spiegel, at least before the outbreak of the war, claim that Russia has the right to feel provoked by these misleading statements.

Regardless of whether these were put in writing, whether anything was promised or not, it was perfectly clear to the leading politicians in the West at the time that NATO expansion to the east of Germany was very risky, and would be considered an explicit provocation by Russia.

10 of 52

NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union

1999 : First NATO expansion: Poland, Hungary, & Czech Republic

2004 : Second NATO expansion: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, & Slovakia

2008 : NATO Bucharest Summit pledges eventual Ukraine and Georgia membership. Putin threatens to “destroy Ukraine before it joins NATO”

Red line for Russia
Souring of Tensions between West and Russia
War against Georgia

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and many promises made by Western politicians not to expand, former Warsaw Pact countries were immediately encouraged to join NATO so as to align market interests with the Western-led capitalist economy. As a result, NATO more than doubled in size and exponentially expanded its territorial scope, with the addition of 16 countries from 1999 to the present. Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright revealed this intention when she said, “NATO will do for Europe’s east what NATO has already helped to do for Europe’s west: steadily and systematically, we will continue erasing – without replacing – the line drawn in Europe by Stalin’s bloody boot.”

The Bucharest summit, which took place in 2008, pledged eventual Ukraine and Georgia membership into NATO. This was another significant red line that was crossed, and one that contributed very greatly to the souring of tensions between the west and russia. Taking advantage of the fact that US imperialism was bogged down in Iraq, Russia waged a short, sharp war against Georgia, destroying its army (which had been trained and equipped by NATO) and then withdrawing, having secured points of support in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian Republics, which broke away from Georgia.

11 of 52

The Orange Revolution

Protests

overthrow Viktor Yanukovych
install pro-NATO Yushchenko

Modelled on previous protests

former Yugoslavia & Georgia

US Funding

$14 million just for the Orange Revolution
overall civil-society budget Ukraine (2003-2004) $57.8-$65 million.

The Colour Revolution of 2004, inspired by previous color revolutions which had taken place in former Yugoslavia and Georgia, was a series of protests in Kyiv aimed at the overthrow of the elected president Yanukovich. Although this protest started due to the general population's dissatisfaction with the election of Yanukovych, and the legitimacy thereof, there is ample evidence of significant US meddling, particularly be groups such as Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Democratic Institute. Freedom House is funded directly by the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for Democracy, which the Washington post referred to as “The sugar daddy of overt operations, which did openly what had once been unspeakably covert -- dispensing money to anti-communist forces behind the Iron Curtain” as well as the U.S. Department of State. US Aid and the Open Society are also alleged contributors. This revolution successfully led to Viktor Yushchenko, who favored admitting Ukraine to NATO and adopting an International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural adjustment program that benefited U.S. investors while cutting social programs, to become president. In addition, On 22 January 2010, he awarded Stephan Bandera, a nazi-collaborator, the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine.

To do so, the aforementioned US organisations:

Hired US pollsters and professional consultants to organise focus groups and use psephological data to plot strategy.

- United opposition leaders to increase the chance of unseating their target.

- Bused so called activists from the previous revolution attempts, especially from Serbia.

- helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers

US government expenditure on the orange revolution has been put at $14 million, while the overall civil-society promotion budget set by Washington for Ukraine (2003-2004) was $57.8-$65 million.

12 of 52

Resistance to NATO within Ukraine

13 of 52

Referendum against joining NATO

Ukrainian opposition bloc

4.5 million signatures
Reflected the feeling of many Ukrainians

14 of 52

Anti-NATO protests

Six separate military exercises

"Tight Knot" exercises with Britain
“Sea Breeze" exercises with the US

Protests around Ukraine

Feodosya (Crimea)
Simferopol (Crimea)
Kiev

Also in 2006, the government of Ukraine was planning to hold six separate military exercises in the summer, with the participation of foreign troops, including the multinational Sea Breeze 2006 exercise with the US and a sizable NATO contingent, as well as the tight knot exercises with Britain. However, an authorization of these exercises by the Ukrainian parliament was still pending during the time leading up to the exercises. In February, the previous Verkhovna Rada rejected a presidential bill on allowing foreign troops to take part in the maneuvers planned for 2006.

The arrival of Western ships in the port of Simferopol and Feodosyia, containing 200 US Marine reservists, in June 2006 prompted anti-American and anti-NATO protests.

The protests also spread to Kiev

The United States ended up cancelling the summer naval exercise, called Sea Breeze, in the Black Sea blaming the situation in the Middle East. However, it would be interesting to know how much these protests may have had an effect. Unfortunately, very little information can be found about these protests.

15 of 52

Euromaidan

16 of 52

US Meddling in Ukraine

Victoria Nuland, former head of the US State Department confirmed that 5 billion USD had been spent on supporting a “democratic government” in Ukraine
The NED alone granted 22 million USD to different recipients in Ukraine
Shortly before the Maidan revolution the NED hosted a talk by Sergii Leshchenko on the lessons learned from the Orange revolution

Advocated for funding NGOs and using social media as “alternative sources of information

The US has been meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nuland herself admitted this shortly after the Maidan Revolution

Nuland: “The United States has invested some $5 billion in Ukraine since 1991 [...] . And that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong, democratic government that represents their interests”

Some of this Money, 22 million was awarded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), who’s founder once admitted that the NED does what the CIA “did covertly 25 years ago”

In 2013 Carl Gershman who was the chief of the NED at the time, outlined washington's efforts to weaken Russia’s influence in eastern europe. In This context he called Ukraine “the biggest prize”

Shortly before the Maidan Revolution, the NED hosted a talk in Ukraine, hosted by Sergeii Leshchenko. In this presentation he talked about the lessons which had to be learned from the orange revolution, if the next one were to be successful. In this context he particularly stressed the importance of using social media as and “alternative source of information”

Interestingly,since the start of the war, the NED has deleted their archives on money spent in Ukraine, although Leshchenko’s presentation can still be found on their website. The archived webpage captured February 25, 2022 from 14:53 shows that NED granted $22,394,281 in the form of 334 awards to Ukraine between 2014 to the present. The capture at 23:10 the same day shows "No results found" for Ukraine. As of right now, there are still "No results found" for Ukraine.

17 of 52

A Divided Country

18 of 52

The European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement

Feb 2012: Ukraine-EU summit

“My colleagues and I have confirmed the joint intent to make every effort to sign agreement” - Yanukovych

19 of 52

The European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement

On interesting part of the AA is article ten which outlines closer cooperation on military cooperation between UA and the EU, under the European Defense Agency (EDA). The EDA exists under the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

Despite being nominally a EU organization the CSDP cooperates with both the UK and the US, the biggest non-EU Nato members. To this end the EDA has an administrative arrangement with the US “designed to provide a framework for transatlantic cooperation on shared defence issues, including supply chains” (wikipedia). Another part of the Common Security and defense policy is the Permanent Structured Cooperation under which the EU cooperates with the UK. Jens Stoltenberg, former NATO Secretary General, called Permanent Structured Cooperation a key example of NATO and EU cooperation.

20 of 52

The European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement

Following pressure from Russia that Ukrainian trade with the Customs Union would have to be reconsidered, and a more favorable trade agreement offered by Russia Yanukovych stalled the negotiations.

Leads to the Maidan protests

21 of 52

The Maidan Protests

Mustafa Nayeem calls his Facebook followers to go to the streets and protest the stalling of negotiations in Nov 2013

Nayeem was later praised by Leshchenko for his “online journalism”

Agitators from leading NATO countries visit these protests (e.g. Victoria Nuland)

22 of 52

The “Maidan Revolution”

23 of 52

The “Maidan Revolution”

Despite claims to the contrary by pro-Maidan media, there was no majority support for integration with the West:

“most [polls] show around 40-45 percent support for European integration as compared to about 30 to 40 percent support for the Customs Union” - Washington Post

The protests escalate on the 18th Feb 2014

Violent clashes between police and protestors, deaths on both sides

20th Feb 2014: Snipers open fire on protestors

Initially framed as pro-government snipers, later investigations reveal snipers shot from a building controlled by the right sector

In response, Yanukovych flees to Russia

24 of 52

25 of 52

26 of 52

27 of 52

28 of 52

29 of 52

2014-2022: Civil War in Ukraine

30 of 52

2014-2022: Civil War in Ukraine

Following Yanukovych fleeing an interim government is installed

This government includes people who had previously been named as favorable by Nuland in a leaked phone call

31 of 52

32 of 52

33 of 52

34 of 52

Minsk Agreements: Minsk Protocol

Minsk Protocol signed in Aug 2014:

Article 1: Ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire
Article 9: Ensure early local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".

Minsk Protocol is very fragile, collapses completely by Jan 2015
Following the collapse Minsk II is negotiated

35 of 52

Minsk Agreements: Minsk II

Minsk II is signed in Feb 2015

Article 1: Immediate ceasefire
Article 11: Constitutional reform to ensure special status of Donetsk and Luhansk
Article 12: Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts

Minsk II is signed in Feb 2015

Article 1: Immediate and full ceasefire in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine

Article 11: Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with a new constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralisation, and also approval of permanent legislation on the special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, in accordance with the measures spelt out in the footnotes, by the end of 2015.

Further footnotes of Article 11 include among other things:

Right of language self-determination
Assistance from central executive bodies for cross-border cooperation by particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts with regions of the Russian Federation
The freedom to create people's militia units by decision of local councils to maintain public order in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts

Article 12: Based on the Law of Ukraine "On temporary Order of Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts", questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.

36 of 52

Minsk Agreements: The Aftermath

Following Minsk II fighting subsides, but doesn’t stop completely
Reports emerge about war crimes perpetrated by both sides

Amnesty: “Both sides responsible for indiscriminate attacks
UN: SBU is systematically rounding up and torturing suspected rebel sympathisers

37 of 52

Donbas Civil War: Tensions Rise

2018: Trump withdraws from the INF treaty, further increasing tensions between the US and Russia
2019: Zelensky is elected on a platform of ending the civil war
When Trump briefly stops weapons shipments to Ukraine, Democrats respond by trying to impeach him

Impeachment manager Adam Schiff: "The United States aids Ukraine and her people, so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here"

Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, co-founder of Right Sector:

“[Zelensky] will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk - if he betrays Ukraine”

Against the backdrop of one failed ceasefire, and a second very fragile one. The ascent of Zelensky initially spells hope for peace in Ukraine. With his peace platform Zelensky wins an overwhelming victory with 73% of the votes, since these promises also made him popular in eastern parts of Ukraine. Trump even goes on to briefly pause weapons shipments to Ukraine shipments which Obama had earlier refused to carry out, out of fear they may end up in the hands of neonazi militias. However, the Democrats, who had seemingly forgot Obama’s earlier concerns, made sure to send a clear message to Ukraine: We want this war and we will go as far as impeaching Trump over it. Although the impeachment failed it sent a strong enough message that helped derail the prospect of peace in Ukraine. The Democrats wanted to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh is the co-founder of right sector, and at the time he was commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army

https://www.aaronmate.net/p/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us?s=r

38 of 52

Minsk Agreements: Buying Time to Prepare for War?

During a visit to the frontlines Zelensky confronted an Azov fighter

the biggest argument erupted when someone informed Zelensky that the veterans had illegal arms, which they allegedly stored under their beds. The president then demanded they remove the weapons from Zolote.

When one veteran, Denys Yantar, said they had no arms and wanted instead to discuss protests against the planned disengagement that had taken place across Ukraine, Zelensky became furious.

“Listen, Denys, I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons. Don’t shift the conversation to some protests,” Zelensky said, videos of the exchange show. As he said this, Zelensky aggressively approached Yantar, who heads the National Corps, a political offshoot of the far-right Azov volunteer battalion, in Mykolaiv city.

“But we’ve discussed that,” Yantar said.

“I wanted to see understanding in your eyes. But, instead, I saw a guy who’s decided that this is some loser standing in front of him,” Zelensky said.

With no support from the democrats in sight, and increasing pressure from Ukraine’s neonazi militias, who were now firmly embedded within the Ukrainian military Zelensky yielded to the pressure and quickly abandoned prospects of peace

https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/10/ukraine-zelensky-minsk-peace-russia/

39 of 52

The Minsk Agreements in Hindsight

In Dec 2022 Angela Merkel admitted the Minsk agreements served to “buy time for Ukraine”
Hollande confirmed this and added:

“the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity”

In 2022 Zelensky went on to say that he thought the Minsk Accords were doomed to fail from the beginning, and that they went against Ukraine’s independence.

40 of 52

2022-now: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

41 of 52

2022-Now

Istanbul negotiations
Consequences of the war
Sanctions/(Pipeline)

42 of 52

Istanbul Communiqué: Peace at Last?

Davyd Arakhamiia, leader of the Ukrainian delegation:

“They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to [...] neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point”
“when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight”

Gerhard Schröder:

“At the peace negotiations in Istanbul, the Ukrainians did not agree peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they talked about.”

Naftali Bennett:

“Anything I did was coordinated to down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France [...] they blocked it”

A month into the war Ukrainian and Russian delegations meet in Istanbul to negotiate peace, these ultimately failed because leading NATO states did not agree to them
Davyd Arakhamiia, leader of the Ukrainian delegation:

“They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to [...] neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point”
“when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight”

Gerhard Schröder:

“At the peace negotiations in Istanbul, the Ukrainians did not agree peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they talked about.”

Naftali Bennett:

“Anything I did was coordinated to down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France [...] they blocked it”

Following the negotiations, ukrainian negotiators were interrogated by the SBU. One of them was shot dead after being arrested by the SBU, according to a ukrainian mp

Both bennet and schröder were involved in mediating talks

43 of 52

Consequences of the War

Almost 1,000,000 casualties

700-800,000 Russian soldiers
60-100,000 Ukrainian soldiers
350-400 Russian civilians
12,000+ Ukrainian civilians

13 million displaced
Destruction of infrastructure

more than $157 billion in damages

Sanctions

Energy crisis for European countries
Disproportionate effect on the Global South

The human toll of the Ukraine conflict is staggering: almost 1,000,000 casualties, 13 million displaced, and cities like Mariupol reduced to rubble. Environmental disasters, such as the Kakhovka Dam collapse, have compounded suffering, while sanctions disrupted global food and energy markets, disproportionately impacting the Global South.

Since the beginning of the Russian military invasion, the total amount of damages to residential and non-residential real estate and other infrastructure has amounted to more than $157 billion (at replacement cost)

A number of European countries joined the U.S. in sanctioning Russian energy with astonishing speed and solidarity, but at the cost of facing an energy crisis much more difficult than that which the U.S. has to deal with.

Russian natural gas accounted for 45% of imports and almost 40% of European Union gas demand in 2021

8th March Joe Biden announced a total ban on Russian LNG, even though the USA was not importing any LNG

March 25th, successfully sealed a deal with the European Commission

EU signed a new supply deal with US

Building these new LNG terminals can take years and costs a fortune (approx 100B Euros), not all Eu countries have this infrastructure

Annual inflation in the Eurozone hit 8.6% in June

Although Us president Biden promised to accelerate the widespread adoption of energy efficient technology and equipment, gas supplies ran out faster than these actions were taken, forcing many European countries such as Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands had to resort to restarting old coal power plants, which were due to be phased out amid environmental concerns.

44 of 52

Peace Talks

The aforementioned Istanbul negotiations were not the only attempt at peace talks. A very important fact regarding the war is that five attempts were made at peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in the conflict’s first few months, during which NATO promised Ukraine endless weapons and told them to reject any deal by Russia. Russia’s primary condition, Ukraine remaining a neutral country, belies NATO’s own declaration that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.” Such a statement, given the historical events that NATO itself set into motion, should remind all of us that NATO’s actions have never had the intention of peace behind them. With 500,000 soldiers and 10,000 civilians killed and a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive at the close of 2023, NATO’s words and deeds in Ukraine are an affront to humanity.

NATO countries have steadily escalated military equipment transfers to Ukraine (tanks, long-range missiles, and fighter jets). NATO members have spent about $100 billion on this “assistance” to Ukraine, with the US contributing half of the total amount. In an unexpected announcement last October 2023, the US promised an additional $60 billion to keep Ukraine fighting. This has offered NATO countries a chance to empty their old stocks and rapidly upgrade their own military technology, setting the stage for an apocalyptic showdown in Europe should the war expand. Predictably, weapons companies have seen their stocks rise higher than almost ever before, showing again NATO’s role in driving war for profit.

45 of 52

Media Coverage

46 of 52

Media Coverage

47 of 52

48 of 52

A study was conducted by Adam Johnson and Othman Ali from the Nation comparing CNN and MSNBC editorial priorities, reporting and commentary with respect to Israel’s war on Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Their findings showed that on CNN and MSNBC, the words “war crime” or “genocide” were mentioned at least 17 times more in the context of Ukraine than in the context of Gaza. This figure is probably even higher because the count includes many instances of Hamas being accused of committing a genocide.

This second graphic shows the mention of child deaths, mentioned 4223 times with regards to Ukraine, where 262 children have been killed, and 3632 times with regards to Gaza, where upwards of 10,000 children have been killed.

I would like to mention that I in no way mean to delegitimize the suffering of Ukrainians, or make them seem unworthy of mentioning. It is however, impossible to quantify disparities without comparison, and is necessary when showing the double standard that exists and why, which is the fact that Israel is the USA’s creation, and Russia is its enemy.

I will now hand over the word to Cody

49 of 52

What is important for the peace movement to know and take action on?

1. **Dismantle NATO’s Hegemony**: The alliance’s role as a U.S. geopolitical tool perpetuates global instability. Its dissolution, coupled with a new European security framework inclusive of Russia, is imperative.

2. **Demilitarize Diplomacy**: Arms shipments prolong suffering. Negotiations must prioritize Ukrainian self-determination, rejecting territorial concessions coerced by violence.

3. **Address Root Causes**: Neoliberal austerity, imposed via IMF conditionalities, destabilized Ukraine post-Maidan. Equitable development, not militarism, ensures lasting peace.

4. **Global Solidarity**: Grassroots movements, from anti-war protests in Russia to climate activists opposing militarized industries, model transnational resistance to imperialism.

Toward a Multipolar Peace

The Ukraine war epitomizes the catastrophic consequences of great-power rivalry. A just resolution requires dismantling NATO’s expansionist agenda, condemning Russian imperialism, and centering Ukrainian agency. As the arms industry profits and empires clash, ordinary people—whether in Donetsk, Dresden, or Detroit—bear the costs. Anti-war movements must transcend geopolitical binaries, advocating for diplomacy, disarmament, and a world order rooted in solidarity, not domination.

50 of 52

What is important for the peace movement to know and take action on?

NATO is more divided than ever. Take advantage of this!

Ending the war in Ukraine is needed and will be a great move towards peace. But NATO’s presence will always breed more war!

Starve the war, not the people! End military spending!

Uphold independence, sovereignty, and the right to resist!

1. **Dismantle NATO’s Hegemony**: The alliance’s role as a U.S. geopolitical tool perpetuates global instability. Its dissolution, coupled with a new European security framework inclusive of Russia, is imperative.

2. **Demilitarize Diplomacy**: Arms shipments prolong suffering. Negotiations must prioritize Ukrainian self-determination, rejecting territorial concessions coerced by violence.

3. **Address Root Causes**: Neoliberal austerity, imposed via IMF conditionalities, destabilized Ukraine post-Maidan. Equitable development, not militarism, ensures lasting peace.

4. **Global Solidarity**: Grassroots movements, from anti-war protests in Russia to climate activists opposing militarized industries, model transnational resistance to imperialism.

Toward a Multipolar Peace

The Ukraine war epitomizes the catastrophic consequences of great-power rivalry. A just resolution requires dismantling NATO’s expansionist agenda, condemning Russian imperialism, and centering Ukrainian agency. As the arms industry profits and empires clash, ordinary people—whether in Donetsk, Dresden, or Detroit—bear the costs. Anti-war movements must transcend geopolitical binaries, advocating for diplomacy, disarmament, and a world order rooted in solidarity, not domination.

51 of 52

Q&A

52 of 52

Get involved in the Resist NATO campaign today!

Welcome to our webinar titled “NATO Expansion and the Russia-Ukraine War.” Today we will be highlighting NATOs role as a destabilizing force against the Soviet Union, as well as Russia, from its inception in 1949 until today, focusing on the ongoing War between Russia and Ukraine.

NATO was established in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II, with 12 founding members including the United States, United Kingdom, and several Western European nations. The alliance's initial purpose was succinctly summarized by its first Secretary General, who stated that NATO's mission was to "Keep America in, Russia out and Germany down".

During the Cold War, NATO played a significant role in the ideological and military confrontation between the US-led Western bloc and the Soviet Union. While direct conflict between NATO and Soviet forces was avoided, the US engaged in numerous interventions across the global south, often using NATO as a means to undermine national liberation movements in the region, in order to uphold its neocolonial control.

In 1955, The Soviet Union offered to join NATO as a means to preserve peace in Europe but was rejected by the alliance, as this would be against its existential purpose of protecting US-led military strategy. It was this act that prompted the formation of the Warsaw Pact, a similar alliance to NATO but of the East European socialist countries led by the Soviet Union.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the warsaw pact, which essentially made NATO redundant, NATO did not cease to exist, showing its true colours as a weapon to further US imperialist interests.

This is where we will begin the webinar,